When Words Become Violence

a reply to: daskakik

Words when written down enact a state of consciousness on its observer , the information imparted either causes them to think or act both of which are the result of quantum interaction, therefore information in the form of words has a quantum affect on matter

dont you agree ?

a reply to: sapien82

I don't know about quantum interaction. I was just being snarky and pointing out that written words have a different dynamic than spoken words.

a reply to: daskakik

Thats alright I dont mind snarky

when you think about it , when we say words dont really have any power , technically they are really powerful , language is the reason we have all we have really!

Our ability to speak and to form words from thought

It is really interesting the interaction of words and thought and the differences and how they are linked

thoughts do literally manifest reality

a reply to: sapien82

OP's point is that the words, without the interaction with thought are incapable of producing action. He's right.

The difference in opinions stems from the fact that everyday situations don't happen within that vacuum. The argument doesn't usually apply in real life.

So lets say a group gets together to tear down a statue. OP's argument fails him. Anyone who "loves" the statue isn't going to be hurt by others blowing it up. People who feel it is wrong to destroy history are going to feel no pain from a pile of burning books.

Are those things wrong? There is no physical suffering so, by the OP's logic, they can't be yet he used the Buddhas of Bamiyan as an example even though that actually contradicts his point.

a reply to: daskakik

Its far worse. OP actually denies there is any interaction between thought and word.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

Actually, I don't think that is accurate. He just places full responsibility from any word/thought interaction on the listener and absolves the speaker because the words can't accomplish anything by themselves but he acknowledges that the interaction takes place.

a reply to: daskakik

Every time you pretend a word flies through the air, affecting your feelings through cause and effect, you are engaging in magical thinking. 

Also every time he says that the only effect words have is on paper and air. He doesn't acknowledge the interaction, simply because that's how words accomplish things and he absolutely refuses to see that words do accomplish things

The cult of victimhood has made language a valuable commodity in it's negative form. Someone says something negative to you then you get victim bragging rights. The sympathy will pour in from everywhere because you were the recipient of 'hurtful' language. When those words come from someone the Left wants ruined then you can bet it become first-page news and plastered everywhere. Often resulting in said speaker of hurtful words losing their job or social status at a minimum.

It's become a tool for the Left, nothing more. One more way to generate sympathy for their causes while shutting down our fundamental rights to free speech and freedom of the press.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

He usually specifies "physical" effect. In the example quote "you feeling" is that word/thought interaction but the speaker is completely released from responsibility. It is all on the listener.

a reply to: daskakik

OP's point is that the words, without the interaction with thought are incapable of producing action. He's right.

The difference in opinions stems from the fact that everyday situations don't happen within that vacuum. The argument doesn't usually apply in real life.

So lets say a group gets together to tear down a statue. OP's argument fails him. Anyone who "loves" the statue isn't going to be hurt by others blowing it up. People who feel it is wrong to destroy history are going to feel no pain from a pile of burning books.

Are those things wrong? There is no physical suffering so, by the OP's logic, they can't be yet he used the Buddhas of Bamiyan as an example even though that actually contradicts his point.

The argument does apply to real life. It is a point of fact that people get angry or sad when they hear words. It isn't a point of fact that words make people angry and sad.

My point from the very beginning is that the words—or in this case statues—are the innocent victims of emotional prejudice, superstition, and falsities. It's like destroying anything. It is gone for ever. No one can use it, learn from it, or be amazed by its beauty. People do suffer with the destruction of their tools, art and history. It's robbing the human race.

You're wrong.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

Its far worse. OP actually denies there is any interaction between thought and word.

That's false.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It might apply sometimes but sometimes it doesn't, That is why I didn't speak in absolutes.

Statues can't be victims, innocent or otherwise.

People suffering the loss of their tools, art and history is the same as people suffering from words. They are not actually feeling physical pain. It is only magical thinking, according to your logic.

a reply to: daskakik

It might apply sometimes but sometimes it doesn't, That is why I didn't speak in absolutes.

Statues can't be victims, innocent or otherwise.

People suffering the loss of their tools, art and history is the same as people suffering from words. They are not actually feeling physical pain. It is only magical thinking, according to your logic.

I'm not saying anyone feels physical pain from statues. In fact I've been stating the exact opposite. What I am saying is that human beings are robbed of the right of viewing them, using them, and learning from them. The same goes with banned words, burned books, and destroyed knowledge. They are stealing from the human race just to satiate their feelings.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That isn't technically the opposite.

You basic premise that no real suffering means words can be shrugged off applies to statutes being taken down as well.

Your feelings about them being taken down is no different than the feelings of those who want them taken down.

You want to eat your cake and have it too. Of course this was already pointed out.

a reply to: daskakik

That isn't technically the opposite.

You basic premise that no real suffering means words can be shrugged off applies to statutes being taken down as well.

Your feelings about them being taken down is no different than the feelings of those who want them taken down.

You want to eat your cake and have it too. Of course this was already pointed out.

You're wrong again, either through ignorance or thick-headedness, one or the other. The basic premise is that words cause zero harm. The belief that they do is superstitious. Yes it's the same with statues and other symbols. My feelings about statues being destroyed, and words being censored, is completely valid and I can make that case.

It was pointed out countless times, but wrong every single time. It's a stupid illogical argument.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You're wrong again, either through ignorance or thick-headedness, one or the other. The basic premise is that words cause zero harm.

Taking down statues causes zero harm to me. Do you think it harms you? Where does it hurt?

Just because you can't see the lack of logic in your argument doesn't mean that you have to reach for the ad-homs.

a reply to: daskakik

Taking down statues causes zero harm to me. Do you think it harms you. Where does it hurt?

Just because you can't see the lack of logic in your argument doesn't mean that you have to reach for the ad-homs.

No, again, it doesn't harm me. Again, it is robbing the human race.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No, again, it doesn't harm me. Again, it is robbing the human race.

The negative connotation is your opinion, just like those who are taking them down feel they are doing the human race a favor.

The only difference is that each party is convinced that they have a valid reason on their side.

a reply to: daskakik

The negative connotation is your opinion just like those who are taking them down feel they are doing the human race a favor.

The only difference is that each party is convinced that they have a valid reason on their side.

They destroy it because of what it represents, not what it is. I seek to keep it because of what it is, not what it represents. There is a big difference.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
They destroy it because of what it represents, not what it is. I seek to keep it because of what it is, not what it represents. There is a big difference.

Not really. They represent something to you as well. In the end both sides are just thinking about what they have before them and want a certain action, destruction or preservation, for whatever reason.